Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Will man survive the emergence of artificial intelligence?

Published

on

Fearmongers tell us true artificial intelligence will eventually destroy us. Conspiracy theorists say it’s already here and running many of the biggest companies and organizations in the world. Philosophers are just as concerned as scientists over the potential dangers of artificial intelligence.

They may all be correct.

Or they may all be very wrong.

We won’t know until it gets here, and most current projections on the development of artificial general intelligence place it somewhere in the next 10-50 years. That means whether we love it or hate it, embrace it or fear it, one way or another we need to be ready for it.

Briefly, artificial general intelligence, which is what most perceive when they imagine what artificial intelligence really is, will mimic and eventually exceed human intelligence as a way of solving (or creating) problems. It’s a convergence of the speed, capacity, and protocols necessary for artificial consciousness, a topic about which there is no consensus. Even those who claim to know a lot about consciousness readily admit our understanding is incomplete. That may be what’s most disturbing about the prospects of artificial intelligence. We have yet to unlock the secrets of our own consciousness, which makes the creation of an artificial consciousness terrifying.

This video delves into some of the fears and potential pitfalls associated with artificial general intelligence. I recommend watching it.

As a society, we need to prepare ourselves for something that nobody fully understands. Perhaps that comes in the form of spiritual readiness. Perhaps it means digging a hole in New Zealand and hoping for the best. We’ll soon find out.

Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conservatism

What Steven Crowder’s latest pro-life Change My Mind reveals

Published

on

What Steven Crowders latest pro-life Change My Mind reveals

Steven Crowder in his most recent edition of “Change My Mind” experienced more aggressive pro-abortion arguments than he had in the previous installments. The episode featured people arguing that moral personhood began at birth or even “experience.” Often times, Change My Mind demonstrates that under scrutiny, arguments have flaws. Such is the method that got Socrates killed. With all of these discussions, the failure to prove the lack of humanity for a fetus proved unconvincing and logically undefended by its proponents. But I want to address the intrinsic instinct, the universal morality, that could not stay buried under layers of denial. These pro-abortion advocates, deep down, know they are wrong.

In all four conversations, late term abortion was supported. However the caveat of threat to the mother was brought up, despite the rarity of such occurrence. Steven Crowder called them out, citing the fact that they said they would support third trimester abortion even if it were not a threat to the mother by their own previous admission. The proponents then hesitantly agreed. So Crowder then asked “why bring it up?” That is the question. Why would abortion advocates rely on such extreme examples?

I believe that deep down, those who have not finished their leftist training have not intrinsically forsaken the convicting power of conscious, because of what I observed in this video. The latter two proponents came off as not even believing what they were saying. The first was a hardcore stoner. The second was a perhaps shy of being a feminist. The stoner gentleman said “breath” was the transfer of moral personhood and if a baby came out and had yet to breath, it would not yet be human, therefore justified in killing it. The last one suggested the ultra vague notion of “experience” rendered moral personhood. Yet she agreed that the experiences of the unborn were valid human experiences and then whimsically concluded that it was still okay to kill them.

She, in particular, sounded really unconvinced in her own stance. I thought she was going to make a utilitarian argument that would have led to an interesting discussion about quantifying human suffering. This would have been a better argument than “experience” which is even less defensible than sentience. The gentleman in the beginning argued that a fetus was a parasite but then insisted it was not autonomous. Biologically speaking a parasite is autonomous from its host.

These two claims are mutually exclusive. Three of these students presented arguments that I was unconvinced they themselves even believed. I am shocked that this was my takeaway, for on every other Change My Mind, even the other three installments on abortion, I believed that the guests genuinely believed their own arguments.

If a fetus is not human, there would be no need to rely on extreme examples to defend abortion. It’s becoming increasingly obvious that abortion is an affront to natural law, as science increasingly supports the notion of human life at creation. The Founding Fathers so cleverly wrote that our rights were self evident. The affront to these self evident rights will naturally be difficult to defend logically. This is why the abortion advocates had such poor arguments with premises that could not withstand charitable scrutiny. In this case, the pro-abortion advocates all believed a conclusion of abortion permissibility, without internally accepting the premises necessary to support the conclusion and the implications they would ensue from said premises.

There is a difference between a person being reputably evil and plainly gullible. That difference would be seen as someone who simply accept that a fetus is not human and simply doesn’t care. These college students weren’t there yet. Nor is the rest of the country as a whole. So there is reason for hope.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Intellectual discourse versus Biblical snippets to spread the Gospel

Published

on

Intellectual discourse versus Biblical snippets to spread the Gospel

In a world with a shortening attention span, is it better to drop “Bible bombs” on people in the short time they give us? With a topic as complex as a Biblical worldview, is it better to deliver long-form dissertations and engage in extended debate?

The answer to both questions is, “Yes.”

Those of us who are trying to spread the Gospel and bring more people to the light are tasked with a difficult challenge to overcome. Much of the world is shifting towards a secular worldview and abandoning the truth of the Bible. Even though people abroad are coming into the faith in astounding numbers, people in western culture are often pulling away.

We are faced with the two big challenges: time and effort. Sometimes, people simply won’t allow enough time to learn about the Bible, our Creator, our Savior, or any of the other portions of faith that are required to penetrate the evil haze that is sweeping across western culture. On the other hand, there is a need to be prepared for those instances when someone is open to discussion, when they have questions and are willing to look deeper to find the answers.

The former often requires us to be ready with a Biblical “elevator pitch” in order to establish the latter. This is one of the reasons why we’re so focused on social media. It’s a venue that we believe can bring people into the state of mind of asking questions. While it’s likely not possible for a Tweet to make people change their worldview, we see it as a prompt to act on the nagging feelings that have been hitting them but that they’ve never pursued in the past.

Once you have people asking questions, it’s important to have the right answers readily available. If they come to you for guidance and you’re not ready to deliver it, you can actually do more harm than good. It’s a fear that has enveloped us at times. It has driven us to a state of constant study; not a day goes by when we’re not doing something to expand our understanding and sharpen our abilities to deliver the right message at the right time.

Prayer is the most important thing you can do. It’s even more important than studying. If you can tap into the message through prayer and Bible study, the Lord will provide you with the words you need when the time to deliver them comes.

One does not have to go to seminary to be able to answer questions when they are asked. Between the internet and, of course, the Bible, the answers will present themselves if you’re are simply willing to look.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Lila Rose reveals the heinous statistics about Down Syndrome abortions

Published

on

Lila Rose reveals the heinous statistics about Down Syndrome abortions

Yesterday was World Down Syndrome Day, and while many celebrated the wonderful successes and challenges overcome by those with Down Syndrome as well as their families, many in the pro-life movement highlighted a disturbing trend. With our ability to identify Down Syndrome from the womb, aborting babies with the condition has become so commonplace, the Down Syndrome population is non-existent in some countries.

Live Action founder Lila Rose took to Twitter to share some of these depressing statistics, including the horrible increased frequency in which it now happens in the United States. Anyone who knows someone with Down Syndrome must acknowledge their value and the fact that their lives should not be snuffed out because the scientific community says it’s a good thing.

Every life is a gift. Every single one of them. The “humane” murder of preborn babies because of their condition is one of the most mystifying stances of the “progressive” left.

Will you help revive the American Conservative Movement?

 


NOQ Report Needs Your Help

Continue Reading

Facebook

Trending

Copyright © 2019 NOQ Report